HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2014.01.27
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
January 27, 2014 - 7:00 p.m.
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sargent called the January 27, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen
Kane
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the minutes of the January
13, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 1, the resolution to approve the November 25, 2013 meeting minutes was seconded by
Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Page 2, Commissioner Davis and Yie spoke with a resident on La Mesa.
Page 7, bullet point noted that the inspiration home design is on a larger property with a wider
frontage.
Page 9, Condition #2 should note the bathroom window should be a fiberglass window so that it may
be painted.
Page 11, commission questions/comments inquired whether property owners had been presented
with an option for an easement for just the term of the lease, and if there were reasons two
documents in the submittal had not been signed.
Page 13, question of staff whether the den/library would represent an additional bedroom and
thereby trigger additional parking requirements.
Page 13, bullet referring to geotechnical work should also refer to what effect there would be on
neighboring properties.
Page 14, story poles should indicate railing height in addition to the other elements listed.
Page 15, “palate” should read “palette.”
Page 19, discussion of motion should note that installation of story poles may be helpful once the
design is revised.
Motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones abstained).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda Item 2 (208 Burlingame Avenue) has been continued.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
2
V. FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items for review.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from Agenda Item 1 (1428 Vancouver
Avenue) as he lives within 500 feet of the property. He left the Council chambers.
1. 1428 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CROCKET LN, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
Commissioner Yie moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Terrones. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused). Appeal
procedures were explained. The item concluded at 7:12 p.m.
Chair Sargent returned to the dais.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 208 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
HOME OFFICE USE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (CHRIS VANDENBRINK, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; RAZIEL AND HAVA UNGAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
(ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.)
3. 1809 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE MAIN
DWELLING (NADINE STOCKLIN & JONAH VAN ZANDT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
JOHANN STOCKLIN, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated January 27, 2014 with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were
no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Nadine Stocklin and Jonah Van Zandt represented the applicant.
Commission questions/comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
3
What other alternatives had you looked at? There was a blanket statement in the letter that this was
the most cost-effective solution. Was there consideration of adding the recreation room to the rear
instead? (Stocklin: There would still be the issue of the existing garage. It is too narrow for two cars
because of the internal stairs and cabinets. Two steps project into the garage, as well as the
washer and dryer, and the water heater.)
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Applicant has addressed other options explored. General pattern in the neighborhood is garages in
the front, often attached, with access facing the front.
Concern that the garage is positioned in front of the two bedrooms. Bedroom #3 might not have
enough light, so in the future may want to add another window on the side for more light. However
since the garage is detached there will be space between the garage and the house.
In terms of the mass, bulk and character of the garage, it reads as an attached garage.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date
stamped January 2, 2014, sheets 1 through 6;
2. that the accessory structure shall only include a garage, as shown on the plan date stamped
January 2, 2014, and shall not be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes;
3. that if the detached garage is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional
Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code
granted here will become void;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's
October 22, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal’s
October 23, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's October 22, 2013 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
4
Discussion of motion:
In terms of aesthetics and design review, they are not part of the consideration.
With regards to the Hillside Area Construction Permit, the new garage will not rise above the rest of
the house, and there will not be issues with view corridors or hillside issues.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-0-0. (Commissioner
Davis dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m.
4. 118 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; JOE ANTONIO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated January 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
How is the differentiation between new construction and remodel determined? (Hurin: Substantial
construction requires Design Review. Removal of 50% of exterior walls would be considered
substantial construction, which would trigger Design Review. In determining new construction, we
look at the floor plans and in many cases would classify it as a major renovation and addition.)
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Joe Antonio represented the applicant:
Designer has addressed the comments provided by the Planning Commission.
Roofline and windows on the den have been revised so they are symmetric.
Commission questions/comments:
First floor windows are centered and balanced, but then it has pushed the second story windows to
the right. Did you look at any alternatives to the upstairs windows? (Antonio: Yes. The window
placement is based on the interior layout, with having a place for the bed.)
Second story windows look like they have become wider. They were narrower before and
harmonized nicely with the narrower windows of the Living Room below. (Antonio: It was not a
specific request to change them.)
Would be better to have the narrower windows upstairs from the previous plans; otherwise they
would be too close to the closet and there would not be enough room to trim out the window.
It would look better if there was less spacing between front windows on ground floor. Spacing
seems too wide. Take a look at putting them closer together or have the two flanking windows be a
bit wider.
Now that the upper windows are not centered, could have a simple alignment where the window on
the left is centered on the gable and the right can be next to it, with the narrower proportions from
before.
Public comments:
None
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
5
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Have addressed the comments made in Design Review study meeting. There are some issues that
they might look at independent of the Commission, but they are minor and would not require
additional conditions or an FYI.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date
stamped January 15, 2014, sheets A1 through A8, sheet G-1, sheet L-1, and Topographic and
Boundary Survey (Partial);
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 18, 2013 memo, the City Engineer's
October 30, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s December 19, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal's
October 17, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's December 17 and October 16, 2013
memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with
all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
6
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m.
5. 1426 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN
INTENSIFICATION OF USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
GREEN BANKER LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated January 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Does the in-lieu fee account for existing spaces? Or is it for just one space? (Hurin: Error in the staff
report – it is only required for one space. Gives credit for existing parking, only requires additional
parking for intensification of use of the 1,010 square feet from retail to office.)
Currently one space short with seven employees. Projecting ten employees in five years. (Kane:
Parking requirement is based on use category and square footage, not number of employees. Also
when there is a fractional space required and it is being provided on site or there is a variance it is
rounded up, but if there is an in-lieu fee it is discretionary and the Commission may consider a
fractional in-lieu fee.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
7
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant:
Branch office for a sales force for a software company based in London. Employees’ jobs will be to
be out on the road selling to clients. Number of people who will be in the office will be the manager,
and the rest will be salespeople.
Salespeople will be on the road primarily. The office is for dropping off stuff, making calls, then
heading out.
Conference room for video conference calls once a month. On days where there will be a
conference call, some employees will take transit.
2-3 visitors to the office per day. Will meet with salesperson to sign papers or receive lesson on an
activity of the software.
Not expecting to grow in numbers of people; would add another office in another area instead.
Converting from retail to office – owners have advertised it for retail but difficult to work for retail
since there are no windows facing public space.
There is an apartment across the hall.
Existing property has 4 parking spaces, will keep them all. Cannot include an ADA space because
the driveway slope is too steep.
There had been a similar parking variance request for an application on Howard Avenue. There
was a City parking lot behind that property. It was approved without an in-lieu fee.
Commission comments:
Is there a requirement to provide incentives to employees who want to take transit? (Meyer: No, but
the employees requested to be in a location with transit, and also near the airport. Would not be a
problem to put in an incentive to take transit, but part of their job is to be out on the road. One of the
employees currently utilizes a Zip car.)
Challenge on Burlingame Avenue is that employees park on the avenue, where shoppers want to
park. (Meyer: Unlikely to park on Burlingame Avenue because it is not possible to walk through the
building to get to the back. More likely employees would park in the city lot behind the property if the
other four spaces are taken.)
How many of the four spaces are designated for the rental unit? (Meyer: Does not believe any have
been assigned to anyone in the building.)(Hurin: Depends on the lease and how the property owner
assigns the spaces.)
Would expect the apartment to have one or two spaces.
Would expect the employees to drive, given that they are salespersons. Since there are only four
spaces and two of them may be assigned to the apartment, the burden would be on the public
parking lot. (Meyer: The 12 people on site would only happen once or twice per month for
videoconferencing. Otherwise only three people will be there (manager, salesperson, visitor) and
others are out selling. There will not be 12 people going to the office every day to park. Does not
expect apartment tenant to get more than one space given how the unit is laid out. Apartment rental
space is currently vacant.)
Can commission dictate how parking will be assigned between the apartment unit and the office
space? (Kane: The Commission is not in the position to dictate the terms of a lease between two
private parties. The Commission may request a more specific plan on how the landlord intends to
address these issues.)
Public comments:
None
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
8
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Comments:
Parking ratios should be basis of spaces. There are not enough spaces on this property for the
proposed use. The in-lieu fee is for this purpose.
Doesn’t like having to round up number of parking spaces; since in-lieu fee can be fractional, would
prefer a fractional amount.
The City has the in-lieu fee for a reason. Have considered waiving the in-lieu fee when there is an
extraordinary circumstance such as with the programming of the use, but also have the option of
charging a proportional in-lieu fee. Concerned with the application since there is a residential space
on the same floor, plus an office space with employees. There will be an impact with this tenancy,
and it needs to be mitigated.
Cannot make the variance finding of extraordinary circumstances since the inability to build
additional parking applies to all properties in area, not just this property.
The projects where the in-lieu fee was waved had extraordinary circumstances based on
occupancy, or the manner in how the parking was being provided on site. A percentage seems fair
in this instance given the parking impacts in this area, and the in-lieu fee goes towards addressing
the situation. It would apply to other office users in the space in the future, and not be specific to the
operations of this particular tenant.
Commissioner DeMartini moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
December 18, 2013, sheets P1 through P3;
2. that the Parking Variance shall be mitigated by payment of a Parking In-Lieu Fee of $39,872.91
($47,467.75 x 0.84 spaces);
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance, as
well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-0-0. Appeal
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
9
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m.
6. 1209 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 200, ZONED MHU – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO
EXPAND AN EXISTING HEALTH SERVICE USE (PEDIATRIC SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY)
(MARI YAO, APPLICANT; MARGARET ANDREWS BROD TR ET AL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF
CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report
dated January 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Hurin noted that upon more detailed
study of the distribution of uses, the additional parking space required would be 0.9 space (rounded up to 1
space).
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Mari Yao and Alexia Mazzone represented the applicant.
Business has grown since opening six years ago.
20-40% of clientele come from Burlingame/Hillsborough at any given time.
Hope to stay in Burlingame.
Commission questions/comments:
11 existing spaces, one blocked by dumpsters. How many are for the business? (Mazzone: 4
unreserved spots now for Suites 203 and 204, will have entire lot if rent Suite 200. There was a
space in the back right corner that was not repainted in when Massage Envy opened – hoping to
reinstate the space.)
Do the Massage Envy customers park in the lot? (Mazzone: They are not supposed to. TALK clients
have blue placards to identify their cars; unauthorized cars are given warning notices. Many people
park in the lot who are not clients.)
People park in the striped zone, but are not supposed to. (Mazzone: When that happens it is usually
because others have parked there who are not supposed to be there. If able to take over entire lot it
will be easier to enforce and tow cars that are not supposed to be there.)
Where do employees park now? (Yao: All but two of the employees take the train. Employees are
not allowed to park in the lot.)
Is there potential to restripe the additional space so there would not need to be a Parking Variance?
(Mazzone: That is what we are hoping. Need to manage movement of the dumpster so the parking
can be used.) Was this potential space included in staff analysis? (Hurin: No, because it was not
striped. It’s a bit short for a standard parallel space. The variance would then change from number
of spaces to dimension of the spaces.)
(Yao: Originally there were 14 spaces. Reduced to 11 with ADA space.)
Investigate having one of the spots designated as a loading spot.
Does not look like many of the spaces have the legal dimensions. One space is smaller than
allowed (7’-4”). Uncomfortable approving 11 spaces if they are not conforming. (Hurin: Staff
considers existing spaces to have existing nonconforming status. Would only need to conform to
current code standards if restriping or reconfiguring the lot, or making additions to the building.)
In-lieu fee is an option but there might be some creative solutions to consider. (Mazzone: Could not
afford the in-lieu fee.)
Work with landlord to see if there is possibility for an additional space.
Public comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
10
Kristen Jacobs spoke on this item:
Burlingame resident and client. Important to be able to get pediatric speech therapy services locally.
Before TALK the next closest facility was in Redwood Shores.
Mills has some speech therapy but the waiting list is one year.
Would urge that even if there is not a perfect parking solution it would be worth accommodating the
business.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Applicant is looking to expand, an existing business at this site. In order to serve clientele, depends
on ability to park in lot. Needs access to parking, but also needs to be careful to look at the needs of
downtown parking.
Needs parking strategy/plan that addresses unauthorized parking as well as loading/short-term
parking.
Lots nearby: G, F and N have a lot of spaces. Would like to have a sense of the utilization of those
lots if staff has statistics.
Needs a schematic plan as well as a narrative.
Chair Sargent re-opened the public hearing.
Applicant indicated they would be ready for the February 24th meeting to continue to date certain.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application to the February 24, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 74 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR
RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (BALMORE HERNANDEZ, AZUL WORKS INC., APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had talked with the
left-side next door neighbor and the neighbor indicated he had seen the plans. There were no other ex-parte
communications. Reference staff report dated January 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
11
Balmore Hernandez and James Herrera represented the applicant:
Bought house 4½ years ago. Was a rental unit, was in poor condition. Has been improving property
since moving in.
House has outlived its life; garage is too small to park a car. Needs updating and improving, has
bad layout.
Wants right materials and finishes to be complementary to Burlingame.
Has met with neighbors, received comments and made revisions. Has letter of support with 26
signatures. Has not received any negative comments from neighbors.
Commission questions/comments:
Is the front door comprised of both glass and a door? The plan shows both swinging. Does the
sidelite move? (Herrera: Yes. The door is solid wood, and the sidelite is operable. Mainly to allow
furniture to be moved in.)
For the window above the garage, consider centering it below the gable.
Second floor plate height looks too high. The proportions of the second story look too tall above first
story, especially on the north elevation.
Rear elevation has the feel of a three-story house. While it is within the height limits, most of the
houses in the neighborhood are single-story ranches. Feels like it will be imposing on the
neighborhood.
The examples on the inspiration board show an aesthetic that fits into the ranch neighborhood.
Commission typically does not approve a 10-foot second story plate height unless there are
extraordinary circumstances. Given the context of the neighborhood being mostly single-story, it
would help to bring the plate height of the second story down to 9 feet maximum.
Would help if on the gable above the garage eave came down to line up with the eave on the left.
Then it would not feel as tall. (Hernandez: Roofline sloped for optimal solar orientation. Needs
space in attic for mechanical, storage. Not a lot of space in the garage, want to have a place to
store boxes.)
Need to “hold the line” on second story plate height. It is a very b road and tall second-story addition,
within context of mostly single-story houses in the neighborhood. Can bring the plate height down
and still have the attic space desired.
Contemporary look can fit within the neighborhood. Drawn to the white painted examples of board-
and-batten siding on the inspiration board, but they have a rural farmhouse look. The examples with
the more subdued, darker colors would fit the neighborhood better.
OK with the window above the garage being off-center.
Residents who did not sign the letter – did they not support the project? Or not reachable?
(Hernandez: Could not reach some, others could not be reached to sign in time.) Did they look at
the full set of plans? (Hernandez: Yes, they looked at a complete color 11” x 17” set.)
Why the metal roof? It is unusual for the neighborhood.
With the parking lifts, concern with noise within the house. Would not vibrate neighbor’s house, but
in selecting a lift suggest finding one that is especially quiet. (Hernandez: Needs to talk to structural
engineer to design it together with the structure of the house. Wants a one-sided cantilever rather
than a unit supported by four posts.)
Commend having taken the time to talk to the neighbors and incorporating their feedback.
(Hernandez: Can lower the plate height on the right side. Don’t want to impose on neighbors.)
Public comments:
Amit Lal, 79 Loma Vista Drive (across the street) spoke on this item:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
12
Excited to have another new house in the area. Helps everybody with the values of their homes.
Took time out last Saturday and spent about 45 minutes going over the full plans. The owner has
listened to his comments.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Likes standing seam metal roof. Usually see composition shingle since they are less expensive, but
that would not be a reason to require shingles. There has been precedent for metal and this is an
appropriate place to do it, as long as the massing and pitch are compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
8. 1220 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, TOM AND CARRIE
PENDOLINO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated January 27, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project
description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Tom Pendolino and Christopher Anderson represented the applicant:
Existing house is odd. The former owner added onto it in 1988, and now it looks like two very
different houses taped together.
Will improve the curb appeal.
Current house already cuts into the declining height envelope so hard to do anything additional that
does not also cut into the envelope.
Commission questions/comments:
Did you look at options that would not cut into the declining height envelope? (Pendolino: Tried but
would have to move master bath, then plumbing would not line up.)
Masterful job of blending together the styles and fixing the flaws. The area where the declining
height envelope is encroached is far back, and there is an existing encroachment. (Anderson: The
existing roof on the back of the house is a 10:12 pitch. Trying to maintain the new structure with a
10:12 pitch on the lower part impedes the second story addition.)
Fixing the non-conforming garage is an improvement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
13
Massing is handled well, and the part going into the declining height envelope is tucked in so has
minimal impact.
Still has two different materials – look at using stucco on both parts? (Anderson: Looked at it, but
they like the idea of having two different materials. Adding the secondary materials enhances the
look of the house. Also a budget consideration.) Right side is the only place where the different
materials look odd.
Is the fireplace in the Living Room a wood-burning fireplace or an appliance? The chimney is not tall
enough for it to work as a wood-burning fireplace. (Anderson: The fireplace does not work – only for
aesthetics.) If it stays as a wood-burning fireplace the chimney will need to be taller to meet the
codes.
Looks like the front entry has changed since the elevations; the notes need to be updated
accordingly.
Indicates the new windows are Anderson 400 Series vinyl-clad windows. Would not want to
interpret an approval of these to suggest that any type of vinyl window would be acceptable. We do
not support a particular manufacturer, though these are acceptable. However that does not give a
blanket approval for any vinyl-clad window.
Good to see that no trees on the site will be removed.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Important aspects in support of the declining height envelope is working within existing rooflines, not
asking for an inordinate plate height on the second floor, and working with various different plate
heights to articulate the roofline.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:18 p.m.
Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussions
regarding Agenda Item 9 (1545 Meadow Lane) as she lives within 500 feet of the property. She left the
Council chambers.
9. 1545 MEADOW LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, ANTHONY AND SHANNON
DELUCCHI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
14
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated January 27, 2014 with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project
description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Anthony Delucci represented the applicant:
Main goal of the project is to add a third bedroom, update the kitchen, and reconfigure some of the
living space on the main floor.
Commission questions/comments:
Were you able to show the plans to the neighbor on the right side where the house would be
extended out? (Delucci: Yes .)
Plans for what the Living Room will be used for? (Delucci: Will continue to be used as a Living
Room.)
On the front elevation, the roof element and the two columns look skimpy. Could it be improved?
(Delucci: Yes.)
The impact of the addition on the neighborhood is minimal since it is on the lower part of the house.
Just extending what is already there.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Concern with the variance application just because the lot is smaller than the standard. In this
particular area most lots are under 6,000 square feet. However the other items can be significant,
such as the existing 6’-6” side setback. Can support the variance with other reasons, but not
because the lot is small.
The location of the existing second story is a constraint. With the addition there is not a lot of area
to cut.
Should not be put on the Consent Calendar because of the variance.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli
recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:26
p.m.
Commissioner Bandrapalli returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
15
10. 537-539 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE TO ADD ONE UNIT TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX
BUILDING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BILL W ONG, PROPERTY OWNER)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had spoken with the
resident in Unit 2 in the back. Commissioner Bandrapalli also reported that she met the resident in Unit 2.
Reference staff report dated January 27, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented
the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Tim Auran and Andy Wong represented the applicant:
Opportunity to add infill.
Three minor changes. First change: on existing units there is a stairway shown being removed.
Would like to leave the doorway and add a balcony to replace the existing porch.
Second change: add a laundry room for tenants’ use under the rear stairway.
Third change: add two windows in the rear of the garage (north side of the building facing the
easement) to add more light into the garage.
Commission questions/comments:
The new laundry is for the existing units? (Auran: Yes. The new unit has its own laundry). Nice
amenity to add the laundry.
Access ramp to the ground floor unit will likely need to have a handrail.
Likes pre-cast concrete risers but not sure if they can be approved for a building permit because of
the open risers.
Will the second story be able to see above the sound wall? How high is the sound wall? (Auran:
Don’t know. The corner building is two stories.)
How will it be lifted? (Auran: Similar to digging down and putting in a new foundation below an
existing structure. Matter of steel beams. By raising it, it will get a new foundation.)
Clever approach to construction especially if the roof is in good condition. Design challenge is it can
have a layer cake effect – want to feel more cohesive. Having siding on both top and bottom could
help, and lining up the windows so it is not as random. Could add a 2x at the belly band to give it a
shadow line.
Stairs seem inconsistent, more appropriate to a 50s modern house. Would like to see more
consistency with relating to the stairs in the back – cottage/ranch feel.
Garage door could be broken down to read as two panels instead of one.
More attention to the details and integration of all the elements.
Concern with the status of the non-conforming use. Don’t think an old house can be raised, thereby
having its location moved, and maintain the nonconforming use of the parking spaces.
Rear resident has been there 21 years. She was under the impression that there would be a
second story addition but her unit would stay on the ground floor. What communications or
agreements have there been with the existing residents? (Auran: Don’t know.)(Andy Wong: Parents
purchased the property in 2011. Have talked to tenants on desire to remodel the house but the
specific details have not been discussed. Have not talked about whether they would be staying or
leave, but if approved would talk to them about what might be feasible. Parents are retired
contractors and plan to move in themselves, and add an additional unit to bring in income. Open to
having tenants stay or come back.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
16
Building is not in good shape. Once it is raised will it be an instance where just a portion remains in
order to retain a nonconforming use? Concerned it would be building a new house but keeping a
nonconformity with the parking. Any studies been done on the building condition? (Auran: In
experience when houses have to be destroyed it is because of substandard foundation.)
How will the owner address the second story and the sound wall? (Auran: Believes the sound wall
is about 16-feet high.)(Wong: On the next block up, all of the buildings are two-story and they do not
go above the sound wall.) Should replace existing windows with double-paned windows for noise.
On plans existing front window does not show mullion, but in new elevation shows a mullion.
Inconsistency on plans.
Public comments:
Neighborhood resident, Trenton Way, spoke on this item:
Concerned with parking with an added unit. People have second and third cars and park them on
Trenton, Bloomfield, and Dwight. They don’t move their cars and the streets don’t get swept, and it
is difficult to put garbage out.
With more units, more noise. There are a lot of elderly homeowners in the area, having to deal with
loud noises going into the night.
Could do updates to the units to make them nicer.
Neighborhood resident, Bloomfield Road, spoke on this item:
Parking is an issue. Rollins Road is already very congested and adding more residents will affect
side streets. Difficult to get in and out of driveways, put out trash.
Loud music, attracts a lot of trucks and cars.
Lives behind proposed structure. Will lose privacy, sun. Other neighbors who have two-story
houses behind them have no privacy.
Concern that new residents will have visitors who will park on side streets.
Neighborhood resident, 464 Bloomfield Road, spoke on this item:
Has lived in same house for 36 years.
Tenants have loud parties, evictions.
Tenants are not responsible, do not respect the law.
(Commissioner: Are noise complaints coming from this particular property?) 527 Rollins is behind.
Neighborhood resident, Trenton Way, spoke on this item:
Noise, traffic, garbage. Situation will go from bad to worse. No room for garbage containers.
Always oil drippings in front of house, and along entire Trenton Way.
No complaints about project itself, except multiple cars per unit and then visitors come.
Commission questions/comments:
Looks like the existing carport is too small for two cars. 18’ deep, 17-‘6” wide. Could we require
additional parking with parking lifts? (Hurin: Can suggest that they consider increasing the parking.
The existing units were built with one space per unit and the dimensions were different at that time.)
Andy Wong spoke:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
17
Comments about noise don’t seem to apply to this property. Tenants are good and there have not
been evictions.
Comments are referring to neighborhood in general, not this particular property.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion:
The project is in compliance with its requirements, but a neighborhood-wide parking problem exists
already.
The size of the existing parking spaces is nonconforming, so they are less likely to use the carport if
they are not compliant.
Is nonconformity status really able to be continued? (Kane: There is some ambiguity. Community
Development Director can issue a formal determination.)
Moving from a duplex to multifamily housing. At what point does multifamily housing take into
consideration the issues of visitor parking?
Is going from a duplex to multifamily a change of use? (Hurin: Multifamily includes duplexes, as well
as two or more units. The code has R-2 zoning which allows for single family or duplex; multifamily
is allowed in R-3 and R-4. This parcel is zoned R-3.)
Until receive determination, would not make sense to require adding additional parking spaces.
Number of spaces and size of spaces are both concerns, so want to understand if the existing
nonconforming status can continue.
When doing a major home remodel, if you pass a certain threshold can’t leave the rest of the house
nonconforming and have to bring it up to code. Are the changes significant enough to where
everything needs to be brought up to code? (Kane: An opinion would determine what are the
triggers under which the nonconformity is allowed to persist or not.)
Given the neighborhood reaction there is a heightened level of scrutiny, and we need to understand
how the position with regards to the nonconformity was reached.
Ambiguity with extending nonconformity, and whether there is a change of use.
Issue of remodels needing to be completed within six months of receiving building permit to retain
nonconformity.
Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
Community Development Director to issue determination of nonconformity.
Differences in opinion on pre-cast concrete stair.
Comments regarding design were to make the overall design more cohesive, which would include
the stairs and railings.
Railing on front ramp should be shown if it is required.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:26 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 27, 2014
18
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 21, 2014:
None.
FYI: 748 Paloma Avenue - review of proposed building material for a previously approved Design
Review Project.
Accepted.
FYI: 2509 Easton Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review
Project.
Scheduled for a public hearing. Deck is significant, very large, and looks into neighbor’s yard.
There was not a deck on the previous plan in that location. Does not have an issue with the
front, but has an issue with the deck. During construction three trees were removed – ensure
they work with the arborist on replacement.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary